While
slavery was introduced into Kentucky with the first
settlers, the slaves constituted a comparatively
small and unimportant element of the population
before 1792. The early settlers, although
coming largely from the slave state of Virginia,
were men of moderate means and were consequently
small or non-slaveholders. Furthermore, the
prevalent pioneer conditions were not conducive to
the development of so aristocratic an institution as
slavery. Since the country was ill adapted to
the plantation system, domestic slavery generally
prevailed.
And since the cultivation of tobacco, which alone of
the chief agricultural products was suited to the
extensive application of slave labor, was ruinous to
the soil, considerable opposition was early
manifested to its wide production in the state.
In Kentucky, as in other sections of the country before
1792, people generally were hostile to slavery and
anxiously looked forward to its final abolition.
It was condemned not only by Washington, Adams,
Jefferson, Madison, Marshall, Jay, and other
prominent men but by the leading religious
denominations of the country, many of which took
vigorous action toward its ultimate elimination.
As long as Kentucky remained an integral part of
Virginia, there was little opportunity for
anti-slavery effort. No sooner, however, had
the question of the admission of Kentucky into the
Union as an independent state been settled and the
election of delegates ordered in 1792 to the
convention to frame Kentucky's first constitution
than the opponents of slavery launched a movement
for constitutional emancipation. In many of
the convention elections, the slavery issue received
considerable attention and several candidates
favorable to emancipation were elected. Under
the leadership of the Rev. David Rice,
they made a vigorous fight in the convention against
the recognition of slavery in the new constitution,
but were defeated by a vote of 26 to 16. The
pro-slavery element was ably led by Col.
George Nicholas and was supported by a
majority of the political leaders of the state.
After the adoption of the constitution, anti-slavery
effort continued unabated, especially in the
churches. The Baptist
[Pg. 140]
Associations while condemning slavery regarded the
question of emancipation as political and as such
attempted to prevent its discussion in the local
churches and associations. In this, however,
they were not wholly successful, for widespread
dissensions arose and in a few instances caused the
formation of independent emancipation churches.
While the Presbyterian church was more pronounced in
its opposition to slavery than the Baptist
Associations, it suffered less from dissensions and
secessions. Less strongly anti-slavery
sentiment found expression in the Methodist
Episcopal and other religious denominations of the
state.
In 1797 the first emancipation societies west of the
Alleghany Mountains were organized in Kentucky.
They were small in numbers, limited in influence,
and conservative in policy, advocating gradual
emancipation. After an existence of two or
possibly three years they were dissolved.
In the controversy over the calling of a constitutional
convention in 1797 and 1798 and in the convention
elections of the following year, the question of
constitutional emancipation was one of the leading
issues before the people. In most of the
convention elections the candidates either
voluntarily or by request expressed their views in
regard to slavery, and in a few instances the
campaign appeared to have been waged on this issue
alone. Among those who favored emancipation at
this time and labored to secure its adoption was
Henry Clay, who was just beginning his long and
eventful political career. While the
anti-slavery forces displayed great activity and
strength, they were unable to secure control of the
convention and to prevent the new constitution's
reaffirming with a few minor changes the slave
provisions of the constitution of 1792.
During the three following decades, anti-slavery
sentiment continued to find expression in a number
of ways. In the legislature repeated attempts
were made to secure the passage of laws designed to
encourage voluntary emancipation, to safeguard the
rights and interests of free Negroes, to prevent the
importation of slaves into the state, and to secure
the calling of a constitutional convention for the
purpose of adopting some plan of emancipation.
While the religious denominations were still hostile
to slavery, there was a pronounced tendency to
regard the question as outside the jurisdiction of
the church. Nevertheless, during the first
quarter of the nineteenth century, Baptist
dissensions were numerous and a number of seceding
emancipation churches were organized into an
association. The general at
[Pg. 141]
titude of the churches was a contributing cause of the
formation in 1808 of gradual emancipation societies,
which furnished an outlet for the expression of
anti-slavery feeling. These societies had an
active existence of about twenty years. During
this time they embraced more or less of the colonization
idea and finally they were either dissolved or merged
into colonization societies.
One of the great difficulties in connection with
emancipation was the problem of the freed slave.
Should he be colonized? Or should he be permitted
to live a free man in the former slave states?
This latter solution, the southern people generally
viewed with the greatest apprehension and alarm.
Believing, as they did, in the decided inferiority of
the Negro as compared with the white man, they could see
only chaos, anarchy, and bloodshed following
emancipation without colonization. This belief was
based largely upon their observation of the free Negroes
who were criminal, immoral, and depraved and were
undesirable members of the population in the North as
well as in the South. Hence to the people in the
slave states, where the Negroes constituted a large
percentage of the population, colonization was an
exceedingly important consideration. With a desire
to solve this problem, the American Colonization Society
was founded in 1816. Its principles, approved by
Congress, many state legislatures, religious
denominations, and other organizations, spread rapidly.
In Kentucky and the other border states, where the
anti-slavery workers were conservative gradual
emancipationists, it became from the beginning very
closely associated with the emancipation movement,
although all emancipationists did not necessarily favor
colonization, neither did all colonizationists support
emancipation. In Kentucky the colonization
movement was very popular. It received the repeated
approval of the legislature and the active support of
the religious denominations as well as that of the
political leaders of the state, chief among whom was
Henry Clay. During the forties, from
funds raised within the state, a large tract of land
known as "Kentucky in Liberia" was purchased in Liberia
for the purpose of colonizing the free Negroes of the
state as well as those Negroes who might be freed for
the purpose of colonization. Although receiving
the general approval of people in the state, the
movement was very disappointing in its results. Because
of the lack of funds and the indisposition of the free
Negroes to present themselves to the society for
transportation, not a great deal was accomplished in
[Pg. 142]
the way of ridding the state of the free Negro
population or in preparing the state for emancipation.
It served, however, as a means for the expression of
anti-slavery sentiment through which the evils of
slavery and the question of emancipation were kept
constantly before the people.
As a result of the general philanthropic and reform
movement which swept over the country about 1830, in
Kentucky there was an increased interest in the slave
and the free Negro and a pronounced renewal of
anti-slavery agitation. Emancipation became a
popular topic of discussion and the Kentucky
newspapers gave the subject more attention than at any
time in the history of the state. A sentiment,
supported largely by slaveholders, favoring emancipation
was rapidly developing, which found expression in part
in the formation of gradual emancipation societies
composed of slaveholders, who pledged themselves
voluntarily to emancipate their slaves and to work for
the adoption of constitutional emancipation in the
state. While the number of these societies was
small, as a result of the prominence of many of the
members they exerted an influence far out of proportion
to their numbers. The dissolution of these
organizations after an existence of less than five years
was due in no small degree to the rise of the modern
Garrisonian abolition movement and the formation in 1835
of a society in Kentucky auxiliary to the American
Anti-Slavery Society. This branch, although under
the able leadership of James G. Birney, continued
only a few months. Both the society and The
Philanthropist, an abolition newspaper published by
Birney, called forth from all classes of the
population, even the gradual emancipationists, such
violent opposition that he was forced to discontinue his
publication in Kentucky. With the discontinuance
of this paper, the modern abolition movement in the
state, which had become a great drawback to the real
anti-slavery work and in many instances caused its
cessation altogether, collapsed.
The increased anti-slavery activity during the early
thirties brought the question of emancipation constantly
before the religious denominations of the state.
Although they regarded slavery more and more as a
political question with which they should not interfere,
a strong attempt was made in the Presbyterian church to
force a decided stand in favor of emancipation.
While the attempt failed, the controversy attracted wide
attention, since in this church were many of the leading
political leaders and large slave owners of the state.
In all the religious de-
[Pg. 143]
nominations, interest was being diverted from the
original issue to the question of the general well-being
of the slave population. Particularly the
Methodist Episcopal, the Presbyterian, and the Baptist
churches made special efforts to educate and
Christianize the slaves. When the divisions
occurred in the Methodist and the Baptist churches
during the forties, the Kentucky churches almost
unanimously supported the southern wing of the church.
From the very beginning, opposition to the importation
of slaves from other states and from foreign countries
was pronounced in Kentucky, which upon receiving
statehood enacted a number of laws designed to regulate
and, to a limited extent, to restrict the importation of
slaves. But since inadequate provisions were made
for their enforcement, they accomplished little.
Anti-slavery workers, in their endeavors to make slavery
as humane as possible while it lasted, not only opposed
the ordinary traffic in slaves but diligently sought to
secure the enforcement of the existing importation laws
and, further, to restrict importations of slaves from
other states. This, it was maintained, would check
the increase of the slave population and consequently
lessen the difficulties of emancipation. About
1830, wider interest was manifested in favor of the
adoption of a new stringent importation law. After a
thorough discussion of the subject for three years in
the legislature and throughout the state, the law was
passed in 1833. Unfortunately, the controversy did
not end here. The supporters of slavery at once
launched a campaign to secure the repeal of this law.
The question came before the legislature annually until
1849, when the most important features of the law of
1833 were repealed. This controversy was
especially important in connection with the antislavery
movement in Kentucky because in these annual debates on
the subject almost every phase of slavery and
emancipation was most thoroughly discussed.
While anti-slavery workers labored in every way
possible to counteract the many evil effects of slavery,
the ultimate object of their efforts was constitutional
emancipation. For more than three decades after
the ratification of the constitution of 1799, the
question of calling a constitutional convention came
before the legislature nearly every year, almost
unanimously supported by the anti-slavery workers,
although many other advocates of the convention were
opposed to emancipation. During the early
thirties, the convention bill became one of the lead-
[Pg. 144]
ing issues before the legislature. Believing that
the time was ripe for emancipation, the opponents of
slavery pushed the bill with all their energy and were
largely instrumental in causing the legislature, in
accordance with a constitutional provision, to submit
the question to the people in 1837. The
anti-slavery workers throughout the country were very
optimistic concerning the result and pro-slavery leaders
in Kentucky and the South were much alarmed. While
the anti-slavery workers of the North pronounced
Kentucky "the battleground of freedom" and concentrated
their efforts there, openly predicting that the
abolition of slavery in Kentucky would be followed in
the near future by similar action in Missouri, Arkansas,
Tennessee, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, and then
the states of the lower South, the pro-slavery leaders
of Kentucky and the South appealed to Kentucky to remain
loyal to her sister slave states, from which came
threats of commercial retaliation and even secession in
case she deserted them and allied herself with the
North. Sectional feeling, which was probably
stronger than at any previous period in the history of
the state, played an important part in the convention
elections. Henry Clay, the most
influential man in the state, was joined by many other
prominent men in opposing the convention and
emancipation largely on the ground that due to the
antagonism aroused by the radical abolition movement it
was not expedient to abolish slavery at that time.
Many of the conservative emancipationists, also, took
this attitude with the result that the convention bill
and consequently constitutional emancipation were
defeated by a large majority. Henry Clay
and other Kentuckians of that period expressed the
belief that had it not been for the interference of
radical abolitionists and northern support of the
Underground Railroad System, by which hundreds of
Kentuckians were deprived of their property in slaves,
Kentucky probably would have adopted some plan of
gradual emancipation. This assumption seems to be borne
out by the historical evidence.
For a few years following the defeat of the convention
bill, anti-slavery activity was not conspicuous.
But during the early forties, the bold, fearless, and
energetic Cassius M. Clay, nephew of Henry
Clay, and a member of one of the wealthiest and
most prominent slave-owning families in the state,
assumed the leadership of the anti-slavery forces and
gave new life to the movement.
[Pg. 145]
Believing that the anti-slavery
sympathizers of Kentucky should have some medium for the
expression of their views, since the columns of many of
the newspapers were closed to antislavery discussions,
he established at Lexington, in 1845, an anti-slavery
newspaper, The True American. The circulation of
the paper increased rapidly; but after the appearance of
a few numbers the pro-slavery element, fearing its
influence, particularly upon the non-slaveholders, to
whom it made an especial appeal, by force compelled Clay
to discontinue its publication in Kentucky. The
press was moved to Cincinnati, where the paper was
printed for a few months. Soon after Clay's
enlistment in the army at the opening of the Mexican
War, some of the men associated with him in the
publication purchased the press and moved to Louisville,
where they began in 1847 the publication of The
Examiner, a weekly anti-slavery paper modeled after The
True American. This, although a pronounced
anti-slavery paper, encountered but little opposition
during the two years of its existence.
When the legislature, due to the demand for
constitutional reform, in 1846 submitted the question of
calling a constitutional convention, the people in the
elections of 1848 and 1849 returned large majorities in
favor of it. It is impossible to say just what
part anti-slavery workers had in this result. It
is certain, however, that emancipation was the leading
issue in some counties and one of the important issues
in many others. Since emancipation had been one of
the troublesome questions in the state for more than
half a century, there was a general desire on the part
of both pro- and anti-slavery men to force a definite
and final settlement. This fact was of importance
in the elections.
Immediately after the election of delegates had been
ordered for the convention, the anti-slavery men began
to organize and held emancipation meetings throughout
the state. In April, 1849, there was a great state
convention, presided over by Henry Clay,
who had come out openly in favor of gradual emancipation
in the new constitution, which adopted a series of
resolutions condemning slavery and advocating gradual
emancipation and colonization. After this meeting,
emancipation candidates were nominated in many counties
and the candidates in many of the remaining counties
were forced to state their positions in regard to
emancipation. United States Senators Henry Clay and
J. R. Underwood, together with many other prominent
Kentuckians,
[Pg. 146]
canvassed the state in the interest of emancipation.
The question was freely discussed both on the platform
and in the press.
One of the weaknesses of the anti-slavery cause was the
lack of agreement upon any specific plan of emancipation
and colonization out of the hundreds of plans proposed
and discussed. There was much talk of the
submission of the question of emancipation to the people
for a referendum vote; and local option as applied to
slavery found many supporters. But the plan that
attracted the most attention provided that all slaves in
1849 should remain slaves for life but that all children
of slaves born after a fixed date, as 1855, should be
free, males at the age of twenty-five and females at the
age of twenty, and upon acquiring freedom should be
colonized in Africa at the expense of the state.
The pro-slavery leaders were equally active and far
better organized. They nominated for convention
delegates their best men,—men who were recognized as
conservative and safe and who held the confidence of the
people.
The result of the campaign was the election of
pro-slavery candidates in every county in the state.
The convention which assembled a few months later,
instead of providing some plan of gradual emancipation,
added a number of provisions to the slave clause of the
old constitution making voluntary emancipation more
difficult and safeguarding the rights of slaveholders to
their property in slaves.
With the defeat of the emancipation party in the
convention election of 1849 and the ratification of the
new constitution, the possibility of the abolition of
slavery in Kentucky for many years vanished. While
the anti-slavery leaders did not lose confidence in the
ultimate success of their efforts, they realized both
that a long and systematic campaign was necessary to
convince the people that slavery should be abolished
because it was not only morally wrong but economically
harmful to their interests, and that some definite,
practical plan of emancipation and colonization must be
brought forward to command the support of all the
elements in the anti-slavery ranks.
During the fifties, the anti-slavery party gradually
increased in strength and influence through the addition
to their numbers of many prominent men. As in the
preceding decade, emancipation was in many counties an
important issue. And in one instance Cassius M.
Clay canvassed the state as an emancipation candidate
for governor.
[Pg. 147]
As the hostility between the
North and the South increased after 1850, the sectional
lines in Kentucky became more closely fixed and the
national questions such as the extension of slavery into
the territories of the United States and the right of
secession attracted more and more attention.
Because of the loyalty of the great majority of
Kentuckians to the Union, slavery in Kentucky became so
closely associated with these national questions that
were rapidly dividing the Union into two hostile camps
that it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to
treat them separately. For this reason it has been
thought advisable to consider the period after 1850 in a
second volume.
<
CLICK
HERE to RETURN to TABLE of CONTENTS > |
